Comments

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 19:51, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> This patch series is for a number of QA/unpackaged files cleanups.
I noticed you have added .la files in some packages. This seems wrong
and useless. In fact I am making a local patchset to drop them all and
I have most build working (fixing last things before posting for
review).
It seems very wrong to depend on .la files for linking and pkg-config
seems to be the most right solution when possible.

On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 23:59 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 19:51, Richard Purdie> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:> > This patch series is for a number of QA/unpackaged files cleanups.> > I noticed you have added .la files in some packages. This seems wrong> and useless. In fact I am making a local patchset to drop them all and> I have most build working (fixing last things before posting for> review).> > It seems very wrong to depend on .la files for linking and pkg-config> seems to be the most right solution when possible.
.la files are an interesting problem. I'm not overly fond of them but
even in this modern age they can help on certain targets like darwin and
they can help with static linking since they have dependency information
that often hasn't been added into the .pc files. We don't often do
either of those things but in general the .la files are pretty harmless.
With regard to the patch series, it just adds .la files to -dev packages
so the only impact is to development images and even there its small.
If you wanted to clean things up, dropping all the binconfig scripts
would IMO be a much more useful effort as those are much more ugly to
handle and bug ridden. At least libtool has some notion of sysroot
support these days!
Cheers,
Richard

On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 23:59 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 19:51, Richard Purdie> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:> > This patch series is for a number of QA/unpackaged files cleanups.> > I noticed you have added .la files in some packages. This seems wrong> and useless. In fact I am making a local patchset to drop them all and> I have most build working (fixing last things before posting for> review).> > It seems very wrong to depend on .la files for linking and pkg-config> seems to be the most right solution when possible.
I think Richard's patch to add the .las to the appropriate FILES is a
reasonable one. Whether you actually want the .la files installed or
not is another question, but if your policy is that you don't then I
think the right answer is a global mechanism to suppress them rather
than tinkering with individual recipes. It would probably be fairly
straightforward to make a new class which did something like:
do_purge_la() {
find ${D} -name "*.la" | xargs rm -f
}
addtask purge_la after do_install before do_package do_populate_sysroot
which you could then call in from your DISTRO config as and when
desired.
p.